Gore: Scientists Disagreeing with Climate Alarmism Tied to Big Oil

As NewsBusters reported Thursday, over 400 scientists in 2007 "voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus' on man-made global warming."

Predictably, Nobel Laureate Al Gore dismissed this historic Senate report by stating through a representative that some of these esteemed scientists from around the world have connections to Big Oil, and, therefore, their opinions should be ignored.

Pretty amazing coming from a man that likely has made what some estimate is $100 million in the past seven years selling this canard to the public, wouldn't you agree?

As reported by the Washington Times Friday (emphasis added):

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

"Recycling of that kind of discredited conspiracy theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real challenge facing society and the energy industry," he said.

Honestly, that someone who just received a Nobel Peace Prize, and has so much to gain from climate alarmism, could be allowed to dismiss such a report as being solely driven by personal greed should offend Americans on both sides of the political aisle as well as the manmade global warming debate.

After all, the position espoused by alarmists like Gore and his sycophants in the media is that the science is settled, and the debate is over. What this report clearly showed was that nothing could be further from the truth.

With that in mind, isn't it media's responsibility to look carefully at what was presented in this Senate report, and begin questioning those on the alarmist side to verify that their position is not just tenable, but unassailable?

In fact, isn't that indeed what journalism is supposed to be about: asking tough questions in order to inform the public?

Or, are those questions only to be asked if they further a political agenda?